Filed: Apr. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51095 Summary Calendar JAMIE ADAN BALLESTEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-99-CV-158) April 2, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this Title VII retaliation case, Jaime Adan Ballesteros appeals from a grant of summary judgment against him. Ballestero
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51095 Summary Calendar JAMIE ADAN BALLESTEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-99-CV-158) April 2, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this Title VII retaliation case, Jaime Adan Ballesteros appeals from a grant of summary judgment against him. Ballesteros..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51095 Summary Calendar JAMIE ADAN BALLESTEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-99-CV-158) April 2, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this Title VII retaliation case, Jaime Adan Ballesteros appeals from a grant of summary judgment against him. Ballesteros claims that he was investigated on corruption charges in retaliation for his refusal to fire a secretary that had submitted a sexual harassment claim. The district court found that Ballesteros had not demonstrated a causal connection between his refusal to fire the secretary and the subsequent investigation; and further that substantial evidence supported Ballesteros’s * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. termination. Having reviewed the case, we are persuaded that the district court was correct to so hold. AFFIRMED. 2
